Canon C500 is Shipping, but Canon's RAW Implementation is Unlike Any You've Seen Before

There has been a lot of talk about RAW lately. With Sony's announcement of a RAW recorder for the F5/F55 cameras, and RED's recent price drops (including a $4,000 RED ONE MX), it's certainly on everyone's minds. Canon, who has been making a name for themselves recently in digital cinema, has begun shipping the C500 (which is retailing for lower than was originally announced back in August, just like all of their digital cinema products). The C500 is practically the same camera as its sibling the C300, except for the ability to output full 10-bit 4K RAW up to 60fps. This all sounds great in theory, but Canon is doing something interesting in the name of quality that just might make you think twice about going through the extra expense just to use it.

Canon Raw is a 10-bit format with baked-in ISO and white balance. That’s right, unlike the other Raw formats, Canon is baking-in gain adjustments (ISO/white balance) before outputting the Raw data. You may be scratching your head as to why, so here’s a little bit of the logic. Adding gain adjustments at the sensor level produces a consistent stop range above and below the middle grey level, even at high ISOs, and reduces the overall noise in the image. Canon is implementing these adjustments at the sensor level at higher bit depths and then outputting the results. These adjustments are also applying the Canon Log curve to the image, which maximizes the range of the final 10-bit file. So is Canon Raw actually Raw? It is, in the sense that the image is not de-bayered before you get it – this step is still done in post. You can think of using Canon Raw as being a bit like ordering a steak medium rare.

Here is a handy photo showing how the pixels are actually being sent out to be recorded:

Basically, instead of sending out an Alpha along with the RAW, it's sending the other green channel. Since Canon is not starting out with a 16-bit image pipeline like RED and Sony (Canon is only doing 10-bit at best), they are trying to save as much detail as possible by locking in certain attributes. These engineering hacks have worked in the past for Canon, who always seems to pull out better image quality than the specs would suggest.

So how is this going to translate into actually using the footage? Canon is only sending out uncompressed RAW, which at 10-bit, works itself out to almost a Terabyte an hour. You should probably let that sink in for a second before you consider using Canon for RAW shooting. 1 Terabyte an hour is absolutely massive, and it means you're only going to be using it for serious or high-paying projects, because your hard drive bill is going to go up in a hurry, especially since you've got to back up that footage. I've written about uncompressed 4K RAW before, and the situation is tricky to say the least. It's one of the reasons that Sony and RED have come up with compressed versions of their RAW formats (and most DSLRs have some form of compressed RAW for still images).

The Canon RAW will be stored in what are called file stacks, and each image will be an RMF, or Raw Media Format file. In post these 11MB-per-frame files will technically be RAW, but will be treated more as a DPX file since a lot of the information is no longer metadata, but actual values. These RMFs will also contain audio and the rest of the camera metadata, and Canon will release an application to "develop" these files into a usable format, just like the other manufacturers have done for their RAW formats.

Part of Canon's strategy (not unlike RED's, either) is reusing sensors that they have already spent a tremendous amount of R&D on -- which is why this is the same sensor as the C300 and the new C100. In order to maximize every ounce of image quality, they've chosen not to provide the user with full RAW capabilities. While it makes the camera a lot less appealing to me, it doesn't mean that the image quality alone will necessarily be worse than the competitors -- you've just got to make sure you're shooting as if it is a compressed format. The big thing about this camera though is that you don't actually have to shoot RAW, but you can shoot uncompressed 12-bit 2K. While I don't know if that's worth the $26,000 asking price compared to say, a $4,000 RED ONE MX, it could still be a worthy rental depending on your needs. The big thing with this camera is that you'll need to mount an external recorder if you want anything above 50mbps 8-bit 4:2:2 1080p, and if you want RAW, you'll need something like the AJA Ki Pro Quad (connected via Thunderbolt to a computer). To get the RAW in a self-contained unit, some options currently available are the Convergent Design Gemini or the Codex S Onboard Recorder.

I always talk about Canon's astronomical prices when they're compared to the competitors on features alone, but they know how to make a pleasing image, and if you already like the way Canon cameras create an image, I doubt you would be disappointed by the C500.

What do you guys think about the image from this camera? What about Canon's way of achieving RAW, do you feel like it defeats the purpose, or are you confident Canon is looking out for the best interest of the user? How about the price, if you were in the market for buying a camera, what looks appealing right now considering the specs? What about considering image quality?

Thanks for posting this. Great post. Canon's Raw is very different than most, but their decision to apply correction at the sensor level versus in post does not make it less capable. You could argue that adjusting the Raw data in post with ISO & White Balance changes is more destructive and limiting than doing it in camera at the sensor level. The C500 out performs most cameras when it comes to sensitivity and noise levels, so I wouldn't say their raw data is inferior to what Red or Sony is doing (actually Sony bakes in White Balance in their Raw data too.) It just means you have less adjustments down the road.

Side notes, the Ki Pro Quad doesn't record raw, just ProRes, it spits out the Raw data via Thunderbolt for a computer to record. You'd need a Gemini or Codex S for raw capture. The C500 PL is shipping too. Just backordered.

The part I had missed was that the Ki Pro Quad does not actually record RAW onboard. Even though I'd written about it before, I hadn't remembered that you needed to send Thunderbolt out to actually record the RAW image from the C500.

humm, 26k and fixed mount? Having an Epic for 19k(brain) and you still have 7k in accessories which is mroe than enough to make it very functional, it wont be competition for Red. Canon wake up and get your prices right.

10bit for 26K. Waay overpriced! Just like the C300 is waaay overpriced for an 8bit 1080p camera. And the C100 waay overpriced for a 24mbps camera. Cant just somebody hack the C100 to enable this BS RAW recording...its all just software anyway. What a dick Canon has become,

To be fair to Canon, it is 10-bit log encoded, which gives you a 12 bit linear result. Also it is giving you uncompressed 4k data, very different than the compressed raw flavors in the Red world. More importantly this camera makes a really great image. Like Joe said, I think a lot of people will use the camera for the high quality 2K uncompressed output. Record that to a Ki Pro Quad or other recorder and you got some along the lines of an Alexa.

I'm not saying Canon isn't trying their best to please all potential customers of their brand, but to compare this 2K output with the output of an Alexa is a couple bridges too far. Aside from the overall technology difference of both camera's and the different 'look' they therefore produce, at 2K, 12bit 4:4:4 the major spec that does not compare easily is DATA RATE. Arri's Alexa shoots at 264Mbit/s in it's ProRes mode. What data rate does the Canon achieve? More close to 50Mbit/s. Let's keep this camera in its own league.

No mate, its 50mbs in HD when recording MXF, effectively you can use that as your proxy.

The higher resolution bit rates will be determined by the codec / format you turn capture to via the onboard recorders. 4K Canon RAW has a huge data rate. If you use software after this to bring it down to ProRes you can get best out of a 444 codec easily and I think you would get fantastic image quality doing this.

The question you need to weigh up is the time and processing power required to make the RAW and then debayer.

Otherwise I think straight to 2K is a good workflow as Andy has already mentioned

Downsampling increases dynamic range. Bit depth must be increased to have more dynamic range capacity at a given resolution. So if an implementation of 10 bit 4K is using all 10 bits to represent useful dynamic range, when it is downsampled to 2K the bit depth will have to be increased (to 12 bit as implementations tend to use even numbers of bits) or else a truncation of information will occur.

Generally video statistics are incompletely described as the relationship between bit depth available, actual dynamic range in practice, and fidelity (the fineness of gradations available within a practical dynamic range) are glossed over. Linear PCM audio doesn't have this problem as it is a linear encoding, and thus a proper dynamic range spec (from the noise floor to 1% THD) tells you what you need to know. 24 bit linear PCM audio (properly dithered) implies 144dB of unweighted dynamic range but practical implementations are less than that in practice, with the very best in production only touching 130dB or so of DR.

Seems that Canon doesn't see what the competition is doing, could this be their Kodak moment? There's going to be a generational shift here where younger filmmakers and enthusiasts are going to see the BMCC, the RED One, even the GoPro Hero3, as tools for their generation and that Canon is for old wealthy people. Kodak dismissed digital initially because "Who would want a 768KB image recorded to floppy disk, when they can have rich detailed film?"

1. Having a good look in camera is best, because denoising doesn't work well.
2. Some of the cheaper zoom lenses good for documentary (24-105) are at F4, which means you'll need to jack up your ISO. I was shooting with that lens on the 7D just the other night, and in a well lit gym, I had to jack up my ISO to 3200, which didn't look good. I doubt the EPIC can handle that.
3. 5K/4K is not suitable for that work, considering you're probably filming for TV or the web. And unless you're planning on using the INSANE crop factor on the EPIC at 2K, shooting with a 1080p camera is better.

I'm not saying that the EPIC is bad. For strictly narrative, it's almost perfect. But, just so I'll be prepared for all gigs, I don't want a camera that's perfect at one thing. I want a camera that's great for everything.

I just shot a feature with the Epic and the Canon 24-105 L was my primary lens. The low light capabilities on the Epic far surpass that of the 7D and we shot at ISO 800 the whole time. I only had 4 Arri LoCasters and available light. We didn't miss any shots. Plenty of nighttime work on the project as well. Noise isn't really ever an issue unless you are showing in 4K as a 2K finish from 5K material greatly eliminates the visibility of noise.

The crop factor shouldn't be a problem for Epic at 2k...just shoot full K's and downrez. Oversampling is better quality anyway (look at the Baraka bluray...first bluray to scan at 8K...it shows, it's the best I've bluray I've seen).

That way you'd get the best 2K quality, as well as that good ol' super-35 depth of field. If you think it's overkill...transcode down to 2k and delete. I'd rather have 4k/5k and not use it than not have it at all.

Btw, I'd never shoot 7D at 3200. I avoid going above 640, and 1250 is the max.

Yes, if you're shooting a documentary you want to lug around an external recorder and record uncompressed 4k at a terabyte an hour.

High sensitivity isn't really that important on high-end cinema cameras now that they've all gotten so good...for example the F55 sacrifices sensitivity for a global shutter, a decision I heartily endorse. If you're interested in documentary work and super low light, the C300 seems more appropriate.

I don't care about raw or 4k to be honest. I make my living shooting commercials and web promo / marketing videos. The only reason I'm interested in all this raw / red / sony news is because I want to see it how it affects the c300 or c100. I just want a camera that easily makes use of my canon ef glass, records audio internally, has a killer image, and makes my life easier. I'm not interested in tons of extra steps, huge file sizes, loads of accessories, proprietary media, etc. The high frame rates would be nice but I don't have to have them.
There are two ways to make better money in this game. Charge more or keep more per project via working faster. I try to do both but only so much is possible.

Marko, I get that. I didn't say it was pointless. I read every post on here, and nearly every comment. In fact I'm a camera nerd if you ever saw one. It's worth mentioning thought that for every 1 person out there who is hoping for 4k raw there are a hundred people like me.

totaly agree. for run and gun stuff, documentary and fast stuff the red cameras are more painful than helpful. i have the possibility to borrow an epic for free but i only did a few tests with it. the image is great and it´s also great what you can do with it in post but it´s just difficult to organize the workflow. it´s a very slow kind a work for me. if could chose between a red epic and even a c300 i would not think for a second and take the canon. that doesn´t mean that i like the pricing of canon. on the other hand i think you cannot compare a fs700 with c300. the fs700 is the clear winner in terms of numbers and price, but the image quality and the form factor and also the build quality of the c300 is much better. it´s really hard to compare. and the red is a totaly different thing. it´s a cam for feature film and their workflow and budgets. there are also a few things on the red which i don´t like. it is heavy, it is loud, it needs a lot of batterie power and a lot of hard disk space. this sounds stupid but it´´s no joke, this are thinks that matter for me.

I'd rather shoot RAW for docs than anything else. The workflow stuff is fine in post---it's on set (I mean---on location)...where you don't have that control. I try to still light docs as much as I can, but I'm not doing anywhere near what I do on a narrative.

I don't get the resistance to RAW. Having that kind of control is the best thing ever. ...but 1TB an hour for RAW? Forget it. You lost me a long time ago, Canon.

I have a personal leaning to the Canon's based on my own preference for the images they produced however the recent RED price drop had my head turned for a bit. However I am still on the fence especially with regards to how quickly a RED would get into my hands were I to order one.
More on the topic, I prefer to bake in more of my look into the image rather than spending a million hours locked away in a post lab processing the footage for a look (time better spent focusing on other areas). If I am reading correctly and the strategy here (with the Canon RAW) means I can do more work in camera without having to wrangle terabytes of footage first then I am all in. Something like that to me makes 4k far more digestible within a shoot with tighter time and budgetary constraints.

Any confirmation about this guy's info saying RED's Dragon sensor currently is incompatible with the Scarlet and Epic, and RED might introduce a new camera brain just to use it, and Jim is retiring? Woah.

Most of that is overblown and we've reported that Dragon will require additional electronics in EPIC (it was always going to require more boards for SCARLET). "Incompatible" is a falsehood. We'll have a post about the other stuff soon.

They will replace the sensor, some boards and electronics. Current Epic/Scarlet internals aren't any good for the Dragon. It just can't handle all the awesomeness and fabulousness of the new guy, apparently, lol.

a terabyte an hour? thats a deal breaker right there. One of the most important part of RED raw is the ability to change ISO and white balance and other metadata in post. baking this in doesnt make sense. 26K is way over priced.

Not true, You should never change your ISO even for RED, unless done so intentionally. ISO controls dynamic Range distribution. your image will break if you rely on adjusting gain setting in post rather than exposing the sensor properly during recording. Whether ISO is baked or not really makes no real difference. If iso was fixed in RED you would have less people complaining about noise.

I've seen it done successfully I think at least having the option is a big part of raw, same for white balance which you might not always nail on set due to mixed light sources changes in lighting outdoors etc. Terabyte an hour is killer too. the image is great I'll give you that

It is not a big part of raw, your gamma curve is a big part of raw, and if you don't have time to white balance, you probably didn't have time for a reference, so your white balance is screwed even if you can adjust in post. The options you want are bad practices and should not be relied upon for cameras in this price bracket.

If you're using mixed lighting, there isn't a "correct" white balance. Plus, grading should be done on a calibrated screen, so it doesn't matter if you had a white reference or not...you just correct the image to what the filmmaker wants.

That said, it's important on set to be aware of WB because the balance of color temperatures determines the image ultimately...you want to be using cold lighting and warm lighting where you intend them to be. You can't change an individual light's WB with raw, just the overall image's WB.

Jesus fine if you're style is no reference mixed color temp then the scarlet is better, for those who don't mind using references and utilizing a base color temperature for a scene then the c500 is a potential option.

Though Canon's implementation of high bit depth recording is interesting, and certainly different, I cant help but view this as an unnecessary as reinventing the wheel. This sounds like an awkward compromise of uncompressed image quality for reduced bit depth, or more unmanageable filesizes for less flexible color spaces. Compressed formats do not have to sacrifice quality as they currently do. with the amount of time, money, and power put into sensor and DSP technology, you'd think a similar effort would go into the compression schemes to make these compromises more realistic. I'm not 100% certain how compression works on undebayered images (speaking from the perspective that codecs make their decisions based on the image data), but given the relative simplicity of the. codecs used today, there's room to grow. This is is perhaps the reason intra H.264 is so incredible, in that its potential with DCT based compression is far greater than the wavelets of say REDCODE. Forget blocking too, as higher bitdepths significantly reduce that.

Very good point. Canon has opted for uncompressed data over increased bit depth. With the data already Log encoded and gain baked in, the need for uncompressed is not overwhelming. The Ki Pro Quad can record in ProRes 4K with the C500, giving you a much more manageable file size and really not losing all that much. It's a good combo, and pretty much every production these days has a strong desire for ProRes.

Canon seem to know their place in the industry, and they're marketing and pricing towards that rather than towards us indies who want an Alexa for $4K. I really hope that Sony price the f5/55 so that Canon is forced to start dropping prices on the c100/300/500.

Most common rentals right now are Alexa, Epic and the C300, and they all offer different services at different price points. In the end, people pay more for the Alexa because they like the image despite the fact that Epic trumps it spec wise. There's a lot of spec-based hate goin on here for Canon, but I think the image from the c500 will be killer, and it will find its place in the market because of that. The f5/55 will be its biggest competition, not the Epic.

Add up total cost of ownership even after RED capitulated on price and the C500 + Ki Pro Quad + commodity SSDs is going to come out quite a bit cheaper than similar capability from RED or 3rd party kludges. The C500 is competitive on price and features and ergonomics (you need a computer anyway to unload REDMAGs every few minutes at top resolution remember) and Canon is probably going to sell plenty of them even if they keep the price where it is. They don't have as aggressive a demagogue as Mr. Jannard or as rabid a fanbase however, but I'm not sure those factors improve your product.

Yea, the REDMAGs are a bad thing, however, the RED cam does 16bit color and 5K, its so much better than the canon that it wouldnt even make the bottom of the list. Pay $26k for 10bit 4K or $26,200 for the camera that every major filmmaker is using RIGHT NOW to make MAJOR THEATRICAL RELEASES?

Every major film maker is not using the Epic right now for major theatrical releases. The new Bond flick was uprezed 2K and looks fantastic. There is much more to cameras than resolution in order to make a nice image.

That's a wild assertion. Most mainstream features are being shot on 35mm and Alexa. There are some very prominent Epic productions out there, but not everything the crews working on those films have been saying about the Epic has been positive - big problems in the early months of The Hobbit for example. C500 is already beginning to crop up on big films, e.g. Oscar winner Anthony Dod Mantle used one on Danny Boyle's Trance as a compact B-camera to the Alexa. The form factor is very appealing, and if the image quality is in the Alexa ball park...

Love the canon image and the ergonomics. But looks like it's lacking in dynamic range and frame rates compared to the competition. Especially compared to the new sony cameras. I think they may have been caught on the back foot this time round. Look forward to their next addition though! 16 bit internal compressed raw, 240 fps, 15 stops, and internal proxy recording ;-) Please

The images in the short look pretty decent - over-saturated, but I guess that's a personal preference. One thing that I don't fully understand from the specs however - what do they mean by Half-RAW?
From what I've understood, the RAW capture that Canon has implemented bakes in the white balance and the ISO. I gather that this applies to all RAW recording types outlined in the specs... so what the hell is 4k 10-bit Half-RAW? :D

Generally though, as is somewhat expected from Canon now, it seems like it's too little, too late for too much. The general specs seem fine and are somewhat aligned with other offerings in that price bracket - but the details therein are where things fall apart really. Like 1tb/hour. That is not feasible unless you have a digital village with you - therefore run&gun and ease-of-use fall apart.

For those here which appear keen to deride Red's products on grounds of inaccessibility and lack of a decent-workflow I can't help but wonder why? I can break down the Scarlet to a barebones kit (powered by redvolts) and use it hand-held with the side grip. And I'm getting full RAW at 4k on the built-in recorder (which on a 64gb card gives me around an hours worth of footage at a 9:1 compression - which is good enough unless you've got massive amounts of fine detail in the scene where you may get some artefacts here and there) which I can directly edit in Premiere Pro. At this point there is no difference between the RED workflow and that which I used to have when I would be using the Mark II a few years back.

Despite the above, I am not a RED fanboy - but viewing things objectively it does represent the absolute best price/performance on the market right now.

Half RAW is used to shoot higher frame rates upto 120fps don't quote me on this but I believe they essentially take out every other vertical line to achieve this so the resolution is actually 4096 x 1080 but is compatible with full 4K. Image may look slightly softer but you get the higher frame rates and can be captured as .rmf files like full RAW can

We received our C500 yesterday, awaiting the external module which enables 4K recording. So far, its another C300 with a swanky rig and slightly different lCD adjustment, until we get to test out the RAW box pretty soon...

Almos all of that promotional has something very wrong: the shutter is at "360º" (the impossible for a mechanichal shutter, but quite a normal option in video cameras; 1/24th, for instance) instead of 180º in all othe slowmo shots. It ends up looking like a video that craved for light when shooting auto. I don't understand why many pros use this shutter speed. Perhaps coming from film they think that the right setting is that which equals the frames per second (1/24 for 24fps instead of 1/48 to mimic the 180º mechanical shutter from film cameras)?
Of course, this can be an aesthetic choice, or a technical one when you need that extra stop. But seeing how in many movies this happens in slowmo shots (and in some movies like Public Enemies or Captain America it happens in the entire movie, I remember how bad it was to watch it) but stays right in the rest of the shots, I think this is a common mistake. But it screams "video" to me.

I just saw Man & Beast last night, projected in 4K at a local cinema. All I can say is WOW! I don't care what Canon are doing 'under the hood' to achieve their 4K, the results look absolutely stunning on the big screen.

10-bit log encoded, which gives you a 12 bit linear result.
BS
Log shooting is a tradeoff. there is no way 1024 possible levels translates to 4096 levels. You are just sacrificing dynamic resolution in other parts of the image, midtones, to preserve highlights and blacks.

C500 + Ki Pro Quad + commodity SSDs is going to come out quite a bit cheaper than similar capability from RED or 3rd party kludges.
Your math skills are wanting. The KiPro quad and SSD solutions work for the Red Camera as well, so the only difference is the camera price.

Get your FREE copy of the eBook called "astonishingly detailed and useful" by Filmmaker Magazine!
It's 100+ pages on what you need to know to make beautiful, inexpensive movies using a DSLR. Subscribe to receive the free PDF!